Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

sam.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 102 posts

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#81

Post by eesmith »

afpx wrote: post #75
noobermin wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already came for NSF and the NIH, how can they not also come for DARPA? Most republicans don't believe in defense or anything like that, they believe in returning money to their investors...I mean campaign contributors who are defense contractors . A contractor makes money selling contracts, whether they affect the actual defense capabilities of the country or not.

From what I understand, the funding cuts are primarily related to DEI initiatives. And, generally the administration is trying to align activities with its goals, so it’s understandable that funds will be adjusted. DEI is a target because its goals are steeped in Marxist philosophy, which is antithetical to their own. Also, Republicans (of whom I’m not one) believe that spending should be controlled by the states. It…

Do you have any idea of the breakdown? Because everything I've see is that no one knows, and the limited government publications are full of bullshit.

Like, if a project studying biodiversity is cut, is that because it is "related to DEI initiatives" because it shared the word "diversity"?

How many of the laid-off VA staff were DEI? The laid-off forest rangers?

How much of USAID was DEI? The Trump administration says the cut was due to wasteful spending and fraud, not DEI.

How do the cuts in DEI initiatives compare to the massive cuts to indirect grant monies?

If the Republicans believe spending should be more controlled by the states, they have a majority and can, you know, change the law. We have a representative democracy to help balance national interests, rather than the interests of a king.

I don't think we can regard threats to annex Greenland, Canada, or the Panama Canal as part of an isolationist policy. Such threats are more closely aligned with expansionism. An isolationist government would not be involved in international negotiations involving Ukraine, or providing support to Israel, to start.

FWIW, DEI is no more steeped in Marxist philosophy than the Freedman's Bureau, public libraries, or the FDIC. As far as I can tell, "Marxism" when used this way is a boogieman term used to scare off any critique of capitalism or its effects, little different than how Republicans sneered that Dukakis was an "L word", castigating the word "liberal." Both terms are used as rhetorical propaganda.

Given the influence Marx had on studying "class relations, social conflict, and social transformation" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism), it's all too easy to say that any study of those topics must be Marxism, and therefore fomenting a communist revolution.

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#82

Post by bfeynman »

afpx wrote: post #75
noobermin wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already came for NSF and the NIH, how can they not also come for DARPA? Most republicans don't believe in defense or anything like that, they believe in returning money to their investors...I mean campaign contributors who are defense contractors . A contractor makes money selling contracts, whether they affect the actual defense capabilities of the country or not.

From what I understand, the funding cuts are primarily related to DEI initiatives. And, generally the administration is trying to align activities with its goals, so it’s understandable that funds will be adjusted. DEI is a target because its goals are steeped in Marxist philosophy, which is antithetical to their own. Also, Republicans (of whom I’m not one) believe that spending should be controlled by the states. It…

Find it disappointing that even on HN people seems to blindly parrot manufactured outrage. Do you really think, nay have you ever tried to look a little deeper than surface to see just how preposterous all around the idea is in terms of actual intents and relative numbers that it would be meaningful to "cut" them? US Republicans are not about states rights, its just the excuse they use when they are trying to dismantle or challenge systems.

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#83

Post by atonse »

thom wrote: post #74
rayiner wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I misremembered, the terms were 2 years or 4 years: https://www.darpa.mil/careers/program-manager (Maybe they shortened it.) Sometimes you can stay longer than that, but yes, you’re pushed out. The organization is highly decentralized: much of the substantive authority to decide project direction is invested in program managers. There’s a deliberate effort not to have a central vision which, the reasoning goes, could…

This is very interesting. I know obsessing over Roman history is seen as somewhat fascist-adjacent, especially emanating from tech spaces, but I keep wanting to run a company along the lines of the Republic’s mixed constitution. No king with centralised power (CEO) but elected Consuls with term limits, who have the power to kick off and deliver big projects, aligning teams however they need to. Give every tribe (prod…

This is (sort of) how many defense contractors already are run. Ones like Booz Allen, which are more like 500 small businesses (each one generally, but not always, mapping to one gov contract) and where the leadership work together but have a lot of self-determination to grow their unit. More like an organism with multiple ecosystems but one forest (like one payroll, IT, and financial system and similar resources) to tie them together.

It had some interesting effects, like how different teams would compete for candidates and give counter offers, all coming from the same company though.

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#84

Post by atonse »

eesmith wrote: post #81
afpx wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand, the funding cuts are primarily related to DEI initiatives. And, generally the administration is trying to align activities with its goals, so it’s understandable that funds will be adjusted. DEI is a target because its goals are steeped in Marxist philosophy, which is antithetical to their own. Also, Republicans (of whom I’m not one) believe that spending should be controlled by the states. It…

Do you have any idea of the breakdown? Because everything I've see is that no one knows , and the limited government publications are full of bullshit. Like, if a project studying biodiversity is cut, is that because it is "related to DEI initiatives" because it shared the word "diversity"? How many of the laid-off VA staff were DEI? The laid-off forest rangers? How much of USAID was DEI? The Trump administration say…

Just to answer your question (not lend any legitimacy), https://doge.gov has been publishing all the details.

I've looked through it a few times to answer the same curiosity you have (I want more specifics, not just the stuff that fits in a tweet). But it still leaves me with questions because I don't know how much of these claims is actually accurate.

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#85

Post by atonse »

MrLeap wrote: post #58
ButOneDuck wrote: post #50

Looking at the comments, most people are approaching this as 'grow, like trees'. We're literally talking moonshot projects here and nowhere does the brief mention specifically trees, or aerobic respiration/processes, there is plenty of room for using Chitin, Spider silk, keratin or a combination of biopolymers to form resilient composite structures. There's already been videos of people using these as doping agents o…

You gotta forgive people. We've all been a little eroded by regular assertions that a safe underhand throws, like turning a webpage into an electron app or whatever, are moonshots. I for one love things like this. I wish we used a little more of our colossal production power to try manifesting the wilder things from our imagination. Maybe they can contract out how to make society have a better handle on balancing com…

Exactly, I am totally fine with us spending some tax dollars to try out these absolutely insane ideas.

But this isn't a matter of "let's spend more" because the pool of people that can see an absolutely insane idea, and ones that can actually work on them, are the vanishingly small number of nearly eccentrics. So there is an upper limit on how much money can be spent if you're at the absolute tip of the iceberg.

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#86

Post by eesmith »

atonse wrote: post #84
eesmith wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any idea of the breakdown? Because everything I've see is that no one knows , and the limited government publications are full of bullshit. Like, if a project studying biodiversity is cut, is that because it is "related to DEI initiatives" because it shared the word "diversity"? How many of the laid-off VA staff were DEI? The laid-off forest rangers? How much of USAID was DEI? The Trump administration say…

Just to answer your question (not lend any legitimacy), https://doge.gov has been publishing all the details. I've looked through it a few times to answer the same curiosity you have (I want more specifics, not just the stuff that fits in a tweet). But it still leaves me with questions because I don't know how much of these claims is actually accurate.

Yes, that's the bullshit I was talking about.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/upshot/doge-contracts-mus...

> The Department of Government Efficiency, the federal cost-cutting initiative championed by Elon Musk, published on Monday a list of government contracts it has canceled, together amounting to about $16 billion in savings itemized on a new “wall of receipts” on its website.

> Almost half of those line-item savings could be attributed to a single $8 billion contract for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. But the DOGE list vastly overstated the actual value of that contract. A closer scrutiny of a federal database shows that a recent version of the contract was for $8 million, not $8 billion. A larger total savings number published on the site, $55 billion, lacked specific documentation.

or from https://abcnews.go.com/US/doge-now-saved-65b-federal-funds-i...

> DOGE says it's now saved $65B in federal funds, but that's still impossible to verify

> It only provides records for $9.6 billion in savings from contract terminations

as well as:

> The official also said they're using a conservative methodology of calculating savings because they're subtracting the contracts' obligated dollars from the ceiling amounts. However, for many contracts the ceiling dollars are much higher than what is actually expected to be spent.

You'll note that there's no information about how much was specifically DEI, while saying the total amount was due to a "combination of fraud detection/deletion, contract/lease cancellations, contract/lease renegotiations, asset sales, grant cancellations, workforce reductions, programmatic changes, and regulatory savings."

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#87

Post by adrian_b »

thom wrote: post #74
rayiner wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I misremembered, the terms were 2 years or 4 years: https://www.darpa.mil/careers/program-manager (Maybe they shortened it.) Sometimes you can stay longer than that, but yes, you’re pushed out. The organization is highly decentralized: much of the substantive authority to decide project direction is invested in program managers. There’s a deliberate effort not to have a central vision which, the reasoning goes, could…

This is very interesting. I know obsessing over Roman history is seen as somewhat fascist-adjacent, especially emanating from tech spaces, but I keep wanting to run a company along the lines of the Republic’s mixed constitution. No king with centralised power (CEO) but elected Consuls with term limits, who have the power to kick off and deliver big projects, aligning teams however they need to. Give every tribe (prod…

I also believe that certain aspects of the Roman Republic were superior to those of any of the so-called Republics that exist today, all of which do not observe the fundamental rule of the Roman Republic, which was that, there must exist no major management function occupied by a single human, like a president or a prime minister, but in all such roles there must be at least 2 humans, equal in the granted authorities, so that they will control each other, and this rule could have exceptions only in truly exceptional situations, i.e. wars or calamities, when dictators could be appointed.

Despite the fact that the modern republics are supposed to have some "checks and balances" to limit the power of the leaders, I have seen too many cases of presidents or prime ministers who, after being elected using various lies, begin to act like absolutist kings and nobody seems able to stop them, because they claim that they "represent the majority of the people who have elected them" and nobody may limit their power, because nobody is equal to them.

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#88

Post by afpx »

eesmith wrote: post #81
afpx wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand, the funding cuts are primarily related to DEI initiatives. And, generally the administration is trying to align activities with its goals, so it’s understandable that funds will be adjusted. DEI is a target because its goals are steeped in Marxist philosophy, which is antithetical to their own. Also, Republicans (of whom I’m not one) believe that spending should be controlled by the states. It…

Do you have any idea of the breakdown? Because everything I've see is that no one knows , and the limited government publications are full of bullshit. Like, if a project studying biodiversity is cut, is that because it is "related to DEI initiatives" because it shared the word "diversity"? How many of the laid-off VA staff were DEI? The laid-off forest rangers? How much of USAID was DEI? The Trump administration say…

To be clear, I'm not a republican or a conservative. If it matters, I'm a modern liberal (i.e. what existed before progressivism but after classical liberalism). I'm just trying to distill what I believe the right says and what I observe. Also, this is my take on modern American conservatism, in general - individual cases vary.

First, if you look up progressive academic theorists [1] you will see that they are largely inspired by Marxist philosophy either directly or indirectly. The right are diametrically opposed to Marxism because it relies on an assumption that Man can rise above his Animal instincts. But, man can't, even with best intentions (i.e. ethics professors do not behave more ethically than non-ethicists) [2][3].

There is a belief by the right that the great majority of people working in government and government related industries (e.g. NGOs) have come out of liberal arts programs that were inspired by the academics listed. They also believe that progressive ideology has steeped into the sciences.

I believe the right's goal is total dismantling of the executive branch. The point is really to destroy any power that the executive has down to the bare minimum so that the risk of a king is eliminated. It's interesting that they put a group of potential tyrants in charge of all of this - it's almost as if they want to show everyone how bad of an idea it is for the president to have so much control.

They generally believe that differing cultures are a good thing but because of Human nature integration cannot work. Therefore, in a state system, they believe one should be allowed to move to the state of their choice and enjoy whatever culture they want given the constraints of the constitution.

Furthermore, they believe the constitution is the only way for lasting peace. It sets the bare minimum for a social contract that works across cultures and people. It gives a framework where people can be culturally different but equal. And, they hope to expand the US to other countries voluntarily (we hope) so that those countries may also share in its glory.

[1] Achille Mbembe, Angela Davis, bell hooks, Cheryl Harris, Cornel West, David Graeber, Derrick Bell, Edward Said, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Gayatri Spivak, Gayle Rubin, Herbert Marcuse, Homi Bhabha, Jacques Derrida, Judith Butler, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Mari Matsuda, Mariame Kaba, Michel Foucault, Nancy Fraser, Naomi Klein, Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o, Patricia Hill Collins, Peggy McIntosh, Richard Delgado, Robin DiAngelo, Robin D.G. Kelley, Ruth Wilson Gilmore, Simone de Beauvoir, Thomas Piketty, Frantz Fanon, Pierre Clastres, Antonio Gramsci, Jacques Derrida, Roland Barthes, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Marcel Mauss, Sherry Ortner, Ferdinand de Saussure, Louis Althusser, Gilles Deleuze, David Harvey, Murray Bookchin, Cedric Robinson, C.L.R. James, Paulo Freire

[2] Schwitzgebel & Rust (2014), etc.

[3] This is also why many Christians align with conservative thinking because in Christianity Jesus is the only Good thing of this world, and every person is equally sinful.

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#89

Post by analognoise »

afpx wrote: post #75
noobermin wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already came for NSF and the NIH, how can they not also come for DARPA? Most republicans don't believe in defense or anything like that, they believe in returning money to their investors...I mean campaign contributors who are defense contractors . A contractor makes money selling contracts, whether they affect the actual defense capabilities of the country or not.

From what I understand, the funding cuts are primarily related to DEI initiatives. And, generally the administration is trying to align activities with its goals, so it’s understandable that funds will be adjusted. DEI is a target because its goals are steeped in Marxist philosophy, which is antithetical to their own. Also, Republicans (of whom I’m not one) believe that spending should be controlled by the states. It…

> DEI is a target because its goals are steeped in Marxist philosophy

Tell me which parts of “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion” you disagree with, then tell me how those things tie to Marxism?

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#90

Post by Wololooo »

eesmith wrote: post #86
atonse wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to answer your question (not lend any legitimacy), https://doge.gov has been publishing all the details. I've looked through it a few times to answer the same curiosity you have (I want more specifics, not just the stuff that fits in a tweet). But it still leaves me with questions because I don't know how much of these claims is actually accurate.

Yes, that's the bullshit I was talking about. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/upshot/doge-contracts-mus... > The Department of Government Efficiency, the federal cost-cutting initiative championed by Elon Musk, published on Monday a list of government contracts it has canceled, together amounting to about $16 billion in savings itemized on a new “wall of receipts” on its website. > Almost half of those line-item s…

The hard truth is that they have no clue about what they are cutting and they mainly do not care because the initiative is not to make things better it is to break a currently working system in favour of God knows what.

Every step taken by the current administration has undermined the safety and current position of the US both domestically and on the international stage. The only people that I see profiting from the current situation are Russia and then China.

Regardless of opinions on Diversity Equity and Inclusion, one has to look at the current situation with pragmatism: Firing all probatory employees is just insane. Firing the people responsible of your nuclear Arsenal is insane Firing competent workers because of their skin colour or they do not have the genitalia you prefer is insane. Sending an emai, on the weekend, requesting 5 accomplishment or risk getting fired is insane.

Let's see it from a different perspective, let's say you have a large company operating on international scale with many stakeholders, you get a consultant tasked with streamlining and optimising operation. Within less than a month, they start arbitrarily firing people based on aggregated numbers from random collection of papers lying around in the office. Would you trust the fact that they would streamline and make things run better or would you assume they just started slashing left and right to justify "optimising". You can tell by my phrasing what my opinion is on the matter but there is no way that you can optimise, let alone understand, those agencies inner working and essential moving parts within less than a month...

Now I will refrain from making any political/legality statements, but from a pure practical standpoint it is, to put it mildly, nuts.

Post reply on HN